阅读理解
托福听力算分The new radio programme from Self-help expert Glennon Doyle unexpectedly disturbed me. In a ssion of We Can Do Hard Things, she focus on boundaries and their importance to our mental happiness. I heartily agree with her, becau saying a polite but firm “no” is one of the basics for a happy life. I was, however, interested when she raid the idea that perhaps, as well as learning when to confirm our boundaries, we also need to stretch them. When does a boundary become a cage that locks us away?
Isn’t it always the ca that just as you think you’ve got an area of life nailed; somebody comes along to show you that that’s not the ca? As I listened, I started to e boundaries that might cau more problems than they were solving.
There was the work boundary that said that unless a project fell exactly into my topics, I wouldn’t take it-which meant that I turned down work that was otherwi interesting and rewarding. 欧美新歌速递
There was the boundary that said I wasn’t to buy anything until I’d reached my savings goal-which resulted in me having to restart my laptop 20 times a day. 内部通讯系统
赴法留学And then there was a boundary around relationships that t out exactly how I should be treated and what I wanted in them. Helpful to some extent, it blocked me from allowing someone to express their love for me, even if it wasn’t quite what I had predicted.
Had I been doing boundaries wrong all the time? Did I need to figure them all out again? I’ve spent the past few weeks looking at the boundaries I’ve cretly put in place, and I’ve let mylf lower some that have been my protection over the years. Then I’ve come to the conclusion that, when it comes to boundaries, I’m a beginner again, and that’s fine. In fact, being back at the beginning is a blessing becau it means there are still lessons to be learned and adventures to be had and that is something for which I can only be grateful.
1．What has really interested the author in Glennon Doyle’s programme?
A．The importance of confirming our boundaries.
ltpB．The benefits of boundaries to our happiness.
C．The urgency of maintaining our boundaries.
psv是什么D．The necessity of reasssing our boundaries.
esnce of beauty
2．Which statement on boundaries will the author agree with?acucumber
A．We should favour savings goals over boundaries.
B．Boundaries tend to keep us from potential friends
C．Boundaries are very likely to relieve boredom at work.
2011年高考英语试题D．We should stick to boundaries despite inconvenience.
3．How did the author feel about boundaries after the?
A．Relaxed. B．Depresd. C．Pressured. D．Amud.
4．What is probably the best tittle for the passage?
A．Just when you think you’ve got things sorted. B．Just where you believe there’s no way out
C．How can we live a life without boundaries? D．How do we become victims of boundaries?
For veral decades, there has been an extensive and organized campaign intended to generate distrust in science, funded by tho who interests and ideologies are threatened by the findings of modern science. In respon, scientists have tended to stress the success of science. After all, scientists have been right about most things.
Stressing success isn’t wrong, but for many people it’s not persuasive. An alternative answer to the question “Why trust science?” is that scientists u the so-called scientific method. If you’ve got a high school science textbook lying around, you’ll probably find that answer in it. But what is typically thought to be the scientific method — develop a hypothesis (假设), then design an experiment to test it — isn’t what scientists actually do. Science is dynamic: new methods get invented; old ones get abandoned; and sometimes,
scientists can be found doing many different things.教化
If there is no identifiable scientific method, then what is the reason for trust in science? The answer is how tho claims are evaluated. The common element in modern science, regardless of the specific field or the particular methods being ud, is the strict scrutiny (审查) of claims. It’s this tough, sustained process that works to make sure faulty claims are rejected. A scientific claim is never accepted as true until it has gone through a lengthy “peer review” becau the reviewers are experts in the same field who have both the right and the obligation (责任) to find faults.
A key aspect of scientific judgment is that it is done collectively. No claim gets accepted until it has been vetted by dozens, if not hundreds, of heads. In areas that have been contested, like climate science and vaccine safety, it’s thousands. This is why we are generally justified in not worrying too much if a single scientist, even a very famous one, disagrees with the claim. And this is why diversity in science — the more people looking at a claim from different angles — is important.
